nanog mailing list archives

Re: Death of the Internet, Film at 11


From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:11:30 +0200

* Keith Medcalf:

On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei
<jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> wrote:

On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
 
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the
little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
 
Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so
mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise
thermostat etc.

This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor
does it require that they are under the control of an Internet based
controller.

How would you know?

It is perfectly reasonable to send a notification to a device by
making a TCP connection to it.  This is the way the Internet was
built.  You are not expected to sign a contract with the network
operator for the target device before you can establish a connection
to the device.

The possibility of denial-of-service attacks is not a sufficient
reason to change that model.


Current thread: